Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Gauhati High Court & Anr vs Kuladhar Phukan & Anr on 22 March, 2002

Arvind Kumar Sharma vs M/O Law And Justice And Company Affairs on 17 April, 2025

17. In rebuttal to the contentions of the counsel for the respondents as well as the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the grounds taken in the matter. The learned counsel stated that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not deal with the issue involved and the questions raised by the applicant through his Original Application. The learned counsel submits that his presumptive pay in the Rajasthan Judicial Service, wherein, he was holding lien up to 22nd July 2006 and 25th April 2007 was higher than the pay fixed under the present post and scale, and accordingly, the applicant is entitled to draw the presumptive pay of his substantive post in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. It is further contended that the pay of the applicant ought to have been fixed under FR 22, and not in the terms of the scale of pay attached to the post of Assistant Government Advocate but in the presumptive pay of the Rajasthan Judicial Service in view of the fact that the applicant was still holding a lien in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The pay 14 OA No.3555/2019 Court No.1 (item No.23) of the applicant is stated to be erroneously fixed without consultation with the High Court of Rajasthan after his appointment substantively in the post of Assistant Government counsel in the Department of Legal affairs of the Ministry of Law and Justice, thereby violating the mandate prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guwahati High Court and another vs. Kuladhar Phukan and Another (supra). As a result of the failure on the part of the respondents to consult the High Court of Rajasthan, the pay of the applicant was fixed at four stages below the presumptive pay. The applicant was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 3rd December 1996 in the scale of 16400-20000 but was not relieved by respondent M/o law. The applicant was also nominated by the Government of India to hold the post of Chief Law Officer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the pay scale of 16400-20000, which he held for almost six years. However, the pay of the applicant was fixed by the respondent in the Ministry of Law in utter disregard of the rules vide order dated 12 June 2009 and further order dated April 2012.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Purna Chandra Kar vs National Cooperative Development ... on 27 July, 2018

Reference may also be made to few other judgments of this Court reported in Gauhati High Court and another v. Kuladhar Phukan and another (2002) 4 SCC 524, State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand HCS and others (1976) 2 SCC 977, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Another (1998) 3 SCC 72, Kanhaiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others (1985) 4 SCC 628, TMA Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481, Ram Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (2004) 1 SCC 126, etc.
Central Information Commission Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dav Sr. Sec. School vs Epf Appellate Tri. & Ors on 20 December, 2018

Reference may also be made to few other judgments of this Court reported in Gauhati High Court and another v. Kuladhar Phukan and another 2002 (2) S.C.T. 768 : (2002) 4 SCC 524, State of Haryrana v. Inder Prakash Anand HCS and others (1976) 2 SCC 977, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Another 1998 (2) S.C.T 137 : (1998) 3 SCC 72, Kanhaiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others (1985) 4 SCC 628, TMA Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka 2003 (2) S.C.T. 385 : (2002) 8 SCC 481, Ram Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, 2004 (1) S.C.T. 366 : (2004) 1 SCC 126, etc.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document

Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya ... vs Gujarat State Information Commission, on 22 May, 2020

43. Reference may also be made to few other judgments of this Court reported in Gauhati High Court and another v. Kuladhar Phukan and another (2002) 4 SCC 524, State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand HCS and others (1976) 2 SCC 977, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Another (1998) 3 SCC 72, Kanhaiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others (1985) 4 SCC 628, TMA Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481, Ram Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (2004) 1 SCC 126, etc."
Gujarat High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Yanam Peoples Voluntary Service ... vs Sri.Raksha Harikrishna (Deceased) on 23 August, 2022

43.Reference may also be made to few other judgments of this Court reported in Gauhati High Court and another v. Kuladhar Phukan and another (2002) 4 SCC 524, State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand HCS and others (1976) 2 SCC 977, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Another (1998) 3 SCC 72, Kanhaiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others (1985) 4 SCC 628, TMA Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481, Ram Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (2004) 1 SCC 126, etc. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

Malay Jain (Petitioner In Person) vs The High Court Of Chhattisgarh on 11 November, 2022

In Kuladhar Phukan and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once a person has entered judicial service, he cannot depart therefrom save by the leave of the High Court. Even in such matter in which the Governor may take a decision, the decision cannot be taken save by consultation with the High Court. The consultation is mandatory and the opinion of the High Court is binding on the State Government; else the control, as contemplated by Article 235, would be rendered negated. Such control and consultation are not a matter of mere formality; they are the constitutional power and privilege of the High Court, also its obligation, and cannot be diluted by sheer inaction or failing to act when 35 the High Court must act. The Governor cannot proceed to act in any matter relating to subordinate judiciary and bypass the process of consultation merely because the High Court, though 'informed', did not act or respond. The consultation means meaningful, effective and conscious consultation. It was held that in a matter affecting the service career of a judicial officer, ordinarily, the initiative for an action must come from the High Court and even otherwise in the absence of recommendation of the High Court an action taken by the Governor would be illegal and devoid of constitutional validity. Such error, if committed, would be incurable and even an ex-post facto approval would not cure the invalidity.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - A K Goswami - Full Document

Shirin Malewar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 November, 2022

In Kuladhar Phukan and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once a person has entered judicial service, he cannot depart therefrom save by the leave of the High Court. Even in such matter in which the Governor may take a decision, the decision cannot be taken save by consultation with the High Court. The consultation is mandatory and the opinion of the High Court is binding on the State Government; else the control, as contemplated by Article 235, would be rendered negated. Such control and consultation are not a matter of mere formality; they are the constitutional power and privilege of the High Court, also its obligation, and cannot be diluted by sheer inaction or failing to act when 35 the High Court must act. The Governor cannot proceed to act in any matter relating to subordinate judiciary and bypass the process of consultation merely because the High Court, though 'informed', did not act or respond. The consultation means meaningful, effective and conscious consultation. It was held that in a matter affecting the service career of a judicial officer, ordinarily, the initiative for an action must come from the High Court and even otherwise in the absence of recommendation of the High Court an action taken by the Governor would be illegal and devoid of constitutional validity. Such error, if committed, would be incurable and even an ex-post facto approval would not cure the invalidity.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - A K Goswami - Full Document

Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas ... vs Phool Singh Tandeshwar And Ors. on 18 December, 2003

13. At this juncture, we think it fit to refer to the decision rendered in the case of Gauhati High Court and Anr. v. Kuladhar Phukan and Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 524. In the aforesaid decision the Apex Court adverted to the meaning of the word control occurring under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. In that context Their Lordships said that the word 'control' has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the control and superintendence of the High Court over the subordinate Courts and the person manning them both on the judicial and the administrative side.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next